A straightforward binary question, not a choice
Fair Play For Women have today won their High Court challenge against the Office for National Statistics. The ONS has conceded that the proper meaning of Sex in the Census means sex as recognised by law.
The High Court has now ordered “What is your sex” means sex “as recorded on a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate”. The substantive hearing listed for 18 March is vacated and ONS must pay costs of both sides.
The Guidance accompanying the question “What is your sex?” is now published, on a final basis, and directs everyone to answer according to their legal sex for the remainder of the Census.
Jason Coppel QC for Fair Play For Women argued that the sex question in the Census is “a straightforward binary question, not a choice” at the initial hearing on 9 March.
It occurs to me that it’s a seriously important thing in life to know the difference between what you can choose and what you can’t. There’s a lot you can choose, including in how your sex influences your behavior, but what you can choose is not infinite. Knowing that difference save a lot of time and effort, and spares the rest of us a lot of endlessly stupid conversations.
Sir James Eadie QC for the ONS had argued that sex was an ‘umbrella term’ that includes a range of concepts such as ‘lived’ and ‘self-identified’ sex. He also claimed that asking about a person’s sex as recognised by law risks a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which relates to privacy. The judge Mr Justice Swift disagreed. He stated that Fair Play For Women had a “strongly arguable case” and granted an interim order that forced ONS to immediately change its Guidance.
This case establishes that sex is a distinct concept in law, not something shaped by how a person feels, and that organisations need not worry about asking people their sex when they need to do so.
Dr Nicola Williams, director of Fair Play For Women, said
“Being male or female is a biological reality that affects all our lives. That’s why it’s important to collect accurate data on sex in the Census. Sex data gets corrupted if the ONS conflates sex with the idea of a feeling, called gender identity, under the question ‘What is your sex?’.”
“It is also wholly unnecessary because a new question has been added to this census specifically about gender identity. We welcome this separate question on gender identity. We simply want accurate data on sex to be collected too. ONS plans would have seen gender identity recorded twice and sex getting muddled.”
High five to FPFW.
I do wish they would also get away from the GRC, because that is still a pretense that a man can become a woman, and a woman a man. I realize they actually have to do something to get one of those, rather than just say “I feel like a [x]”, but it is still gender identity.
But any win is good.
A reasonable ruling. Watch a fair chunk of the media proclaim it’s “anti-trans.”
I’m assuming a “Gender Recognition Certificate” makes a distinction between birth sex, and the “gender” being recognized.
Excellent, news. However:
Which means, of course, that the taxpayer must pay the costs of both sides. And let’s not forget the countless hours of work that FPFW surely put into this effort, which should never have been needed in the first place.
If you want to know how all this was allowed to happen, FPFW has a revealing and excellently-titled article about it on their site:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/whos-behind-the-government-losing-sight-of-reality/
I have one issue with the sex reported on the birth certificate. What if the report is wrong? Güevedoce happens.
@latsot: I’m not sure that the taxpayer’ll pay; I’d be amazed if the ONS doesn’t have all kinds of liability insurance. Will the premium go up? Possibly, but quite possibly not, all things considered.
And of the taxpayer does have to pay? Well, even there I wouldn’t lose much sleep: there’s a public good to be had from the matter being settled, whichever way the cards had fallen. That sanity has won is obviously better than insanity having won; but even if insanity had won, we’d at least know a bit more about which precise insanity was in play.
Enzyme,
I take your points. I’m not so concerned about the money, as such, it’s a drop in the ocean and you’re probably right that they’re insured.
It’s very much the principle of the thing that bothers me. It shouldn’t have happened. Our government shouldn’t be wasting time and money on this. It shouldn’t be pushing the ideals of an extremist lobby group, which they are also paying for the privilege. FPTW shouldn’t have to fight its own government, on our behalf and largely unsung, to protect a generation’s census results and the sex-based government policies that will be based on it.
And so on. That these government departments have been ideologically captured by Stonewall is a national disgrace. The departments are supposed to be accountable to us and they’re sure as hell not acting like it.
The privacy thing is really dumb… you can be a closeted homosexual, but closeted “trans”? Either you’re beardy bloke down the street who can opt whether or not to disclose his internal fantasies or someone who almost certainly will never be perceived as a woman except by invocation of the Litany of Higher Truths.
Women can pass as men (and historically have managed quite often) but males have too many obvious telltales that our “do I want to fuck that?” monkey brains pick up on readily.
I really, really wish they’d ruled out using a Gender Recognition Certificate since, well, it recognises your *gender*, not your *sex*.
As a general rule, governments self-insure – even for trivial matters like vehicle insurance. Very unlikely that the ONS has any insurance that would cover a policy decision, let alone the litigation expense related to it. Leaving aside the moral hazard, how could any actuary price that risk?
Arcadia;
Doesn’t it have a place for “sex at birth?” or something? Otherwise, it’s just a matter of paperwork, time, and getting a sympathetic doctor to check a few boxes, so where’s the victory?
Semi-Off Topic, but I got my COVID vaccination today! YAYYYYY! Moderna.
Anyway…on the information form we had to fill out, it included a question about our “gender.” Problematical right off the back. But one of the options was “Unknown”. Unknown. Must be one of those hundreds of genders we can’t even recognize yet.
@Brian M #11:
Congratulations! We’ve got the gender question on ours here in Oregon and it included, I kid you not, fucking Two Spirits… Like, is anyone still giving that racist shit any sort of validation?
Re the GRC:
The thinking is that this isn’t a battle worth fighting for this census. There are only about 6000 people with GRCs, apparently, and since the main argument against the ONS’ duplicity was the statistical one, bringing in GRCs would just confuse matters. One battle at a time.
Brian M, I also got my vaccination – last Thursday. I’m just waiting for my booster, then I can go back to work at work, instead of spending my day in an office with a window.
And we also had “gender” on our form. And “unknown” as a choice. But not “two spirit”. I was tempted to use the other designation and put my gender as “plaid”.
@ Sastra, no, the sex question theoretically is the “sex at birth” question. Obviously never used to be complicated to ask “what is your sex” (the actual wording). It does legally allow GRC holders to answer with what their GRC says, which will only include a small number of people. The bigger problem is the TRAs openly saying online that they will, and have, lied on theirs. Kathryn Bristow is one (the TiM who is now sole Chair of Green Party Women).